How did people feel about this adaptation versus the most recent remake?
Personally, I feel like 1942 had a more solid story, but what takes me out of it is the fakeness of all the animals, which is saying something considering the 2016 one is all CGI.
I just watched the 1942 version on TCM. There are dozens of animals in it--tiger, panther, bears, wolves, elephants, deer, hyenas, water buffaloes--all real. The only fake animals are the reptiles: alligator, cobra, python.
This is far superior to the travesty of 2016 with its CGI and celebrity voices and dumb jokes and modern-day smart-aleck slang and Disney show tunes and no hint of Kipling's language. I much prefer seeing real animals to CGI creations.
And the 1942 version has a real Indian actor as Mowgli in Sabu who shares a lot of scenes with real animals and rides elephants and bulls in the course of the movie. If there's any stunt double used in the film, I couldn't tell. Maybe in the swinging-on-a-vine-across the river bit, but even there I'm not sure. Plus it's got beautiful Technicolor cinematography.
I love the 1942 version. The latest one I watched tonight.
I was very young when I saw the first one and had a crush on Sabu. I felt the story line was better. The latest one is more for children I suppose and that is why some people may not like it.
The 2016 film is highly enjoyable - far more so than I ever would have expected. The 1942 film is obviously much darker in tone. It’s exquisitely shot and has some truly memorable moments. The encounter with Kaa the snake, in particular, is creepily effective.
shareYou have pique my interest. It's fascinating how snakes and serpents (and dragons for that matter too) have come to represent bona fide faces of evil in many cultures. It's a symbolic remnant of medieval fairytale storytelling.
~~/o/
I actually love snakes, always have... but the snake sequence in this film really did creep me out.
Yes, it’s curious... the snake never represents anything good or positive. Very unfair if you ask me!
There is a funny enough explanation for that, a lot of it going back to Biblical times. You see, in ancient Hebrew culture dragons were regarded as cruel and hostile. It just so happened that a lot of their foes tended to worship what they considered idols, much of them resembling dragons.
Whenever the ancient Hebrews wanted to tell a story about evil, it was therefore depicted with a serpentine body and form. As their culture gradually permeated to different parts of the world, a lot of their outlook and framework influenced and mixed with the local cultures, creating new, enriching identities. East Asian cultures see dragons as good though.
~~/o/
Yes... I currently live in Singapore and have travelled quite a lot in east and Southeast Asia so I am familiar with the dragon iconography here, representing luck or fortune etc.
I do love our western dragons, though. I wasn’t aware of that background, thanks for sharing that! I shall always remain very fond of snakes but they are never going to shake their disreputable image, sadly.
It seems, broadly speaking, a major divide in the perception of snakes is Eastern / Western. As twin pointed out, ancient Hebrews used the dragon as an icon of cruelty, and of course Christianity depicts the snake as a manifestation of Satan.
Things are very different in the East though. In the Tantric Hindu tradition, the divine energy of being is called kundalini, and is visualized as, and translates to, "coiled serpent". In spiritual imagery and traditional ornamentation, snakes represent spiritual desire, infinity, purity, understanding of the spiritual teachings, self control, the flow of prana.
One interesting connection to Kaa in the Jungle Book is the Hindu deity, the Naga. Here's an interesting bit from Wikipedia:
The nāgas are described as the powerful, splendid, wonderful and proud semidivine race that can assume their physical form either as human, partial human-serpent or the whole serpent. Their domain is in the enchanted underworld, the underground realm filled with gems, gold and other earthly treasures called Naga-loka or Patala-loka. They are also often associated with bodies of waters — including rivers, lakes, seas, and wells — and are guardians of treasure. Their power and venom made them potentially dangerous to humans. However, they often took beneficial protagonist role in Hindu mythology, such as in Samudra manthan mythology, Vasuki, a nāgarāja who abides on Shiva's neck, became the churning rope for churning of the Ocean of Milk. Their eternal mortal enemies are the Garudas, the legendary semidivine birdlike-deities.
In Hindu ritual and spiritual tradition, a snake is not an evil creature but a divinity representing eternity as well as materiality, life as well as death, and time as well as timelessness. It symbolizes the three processes of creation, namely creation, preservation and destruction.share
*The views expressed in the link provided I do not completely share but nevertheless seek to understand potentially opposing perspectives.
Wowzers! Thanks for sharing. You are clearly passionate about this stuff. That's pretty cool and most insightful.
I don't know much about Hinduism but have read some of it, which this blogger I follow named Emily Pothast (writer, musician, and artist) touches upon as an example in a good exchange on her spirituality, religion, and philosophy site that I would like to share in turn:
"Most Hindus believe that other religions are (or can be) equally valid paths to God."
"The fundamental separation between God and man is not an uncommon view within Christianity, but it is idiosyncratic within the context of world mythology. Compare, for instance, the account of the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis to that of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, where it is the Great Self itself that divides into two halves, male and female, thus positing the creator in and through, rather than separate from creation. Both stories echo the generative, microcosmic whispers of cell division. But the Biblical narrative, as it is typically read, is one of a fundamental separation from God; the Hindu narrative one of profound, interpenetrating union."
And from part of one of the commenters:
"I would like to point out that the majority religion almost everywhere is interpreted in the most convenient possible way for the ruling class. You quote the religious texts of Hinduism, beautifully at that, as a liberating force, while millions of Hindus in India convert to Christianity because it liberates them (at least philosophically) from an oppressive caste system imposed through centuries of fundamentalist interpretation of those same texts."
Personally I'm Christian, believing in the God of the Bible. That said, all religions are fascinating, worth exploring and being educated on. I share her following notion, "about truth: it is never threatened by digging deeper."
https://emilypothast.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/high-fructose-corn-syrup-for-the-soul/
~~/o/
No problem!
It's interesting to think that the negative-lean of western dragons has less do with them being dragons and more so being what they represented in a specific culture understood within context. Just imagine if it was a different animal; say, a gorilla for instance. It would have been seen as the representation for evil incarnate instead. Talk about shades of King Kong!
I do know of at least 3 exceptions of dragons or serpents held in high regard in the west (including the near east):
1) Caduceus of Greece -- used as a symbol for modern medicine.
2) European Vikings -- most accounts about these people are against them, though, they loved to use dragon imagery on the front of their sea-going vessels.
3) The king snake holds a special place within the Judeo-Christian tradition as it's a cannibal, eating other snakes; triumph of good over evil symbolism.
~~/o/
1942 vs 1967?:) Walt Disney's releasing company, RKO-Radio Pictures (their biggesty films included Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers 1930s musicals) released Bambi, the same year that this JB was released, in 1942, at a budget of millions, with the most realistic looking doggone aniamiton Disney ever did (though like so many others here, I prefer their next 1940s release, Dumbo, cheaper..) the nin 1967 Disney's own company Bueana Vista eleases the all singing, all upbeat version that inflenced the live/CGI version from 2016. I prefer the 1967 one..
shareI like this more than 2016
share